36 U.S.C. § 132
National School Lunch Week
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
132(a) | 36:168 (words before comma). | Oct. 9, 1962, Pub. L. 87–780, 76 Stat. 779. |
132(b) | 36:168 (words after comma). |
|
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 2002–2016 · leading case: Evideo Owners v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Evideo Owners v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “Plaintiffs further state that they “were denied notice under 36 U.S.C. § 132 (a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (a)(2)” prior to paying the official fees and attorney’s fees necessary to prosecute their patent applications after the referral to the S.”
Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. v. Vertex Pharm., Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (D. Or. 2002). “Affirmative Defense Defendant contends that plaintiffs allegations regarding defendant’s alleged amendment to add new matters in violation of 36 U.S.C. § 132 are irrelevant to the issue of whether Dr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.